Was the Norway attacker a ‘Christian terrorist’?

Breivik has been arrested for the attacks that killed more than 90 people in Oslo, Norway. (Jon-Are Berg-Jacobsen / AP)

The deadly shooting and bombing rampage that took place in Oslo, Norway on Friday remains first and foremost a tragedy. People worldwide found themselves shaken once again by how someone’s hatred can unfold onto others in such devastating and destructive ways.

But because the incident took place in the context of a world ever-on alert for radical Islamic terrorism and in the midst of a 24-hour news cycle, Anders Bahring Breivik’s attacks have launched discussions about religious extremism, as he turned out to be—not a Muslim like initial reports assumed—but a Christian man motivated by anti-Muslim views.

This revelation was a paradigm shift for coverage: What do we call him now? A terrorist? A Christian terrorist? A right-wing extremist? An “anti-jihadist”? In some stories, Breivik has been tagged a “Christian fundamentalist,” a pairing that gives me pause as a religion reporter because fundamentalist is a word we typically skip unless a group self-identifies as such.

Ed Stetzer, head of the Southern Baptist-affiliated Lifeway Research blogged about his unease with calling the killer a Christian fundamentalist without any evidence that Breivik was involved with fundamentalism, a movement within U.S. evangelical Protestantism.

“Some have been expecting such a thing (as the attacks) from these ‘crazy Christian fundamentalists.’ As such, you can expect more articles and commentaries like the one from Frank Schaeffer, comparing “Christian fundamentalists” to the Taliban,” he wrote. “Some might say (and with some justification) that this is how Muslims feel (see Salon.com for more on that). And, there are some Christian fundamentalists that do indeed live and act in intolerant ways. Yet, the quick embrace of this label by many drives me to ask, ‘What is going on here?’”

As he and Get Religion point out, Breivik’s ties to Freemasonry and desire for Christianity to return to Roman Catholicism do not fit with the traditional beliefs of true Christian fundamentalists. These factors, both referenced in the killer’s manifesto (full text here), do seem to reveal more about Breivik’s motivations for the attacks, a crusade-like mission to rid Europe of Muslims and restore it to the Christian empire it once was.

To many, this sounds exactly like “Christian terrorism,” and to Americans, Breivik reminds them of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Sociology professor Mark Juergensmeyer writes on Religion Dispatches:

Is this a religious vision, and am I right in calling Breivik a Christian terrorist? It is true that Breivik—and McVeigh, for that matter—were much more concerned about politics, race and history than about scripture and religious belief, with Breivik even going so far as to write that “It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).”

But much the same can be said about Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and many other Islamist activists. Bin Laden was a businessman and engineer, and Zawahiri was a medical doctor; neither were theologians or clergy. Their writings show that they were much more interested in Islamic history than theology or scripture, and imagined themselves as recreating glorious moments in Islamic history in their own imagined wars. Tellingly, Breivik writes of al Qaeda with admiration, as if he would love to create a Christian version of their religious cadre.

If bin Laden is a Muslim terrorist, Breivik and McVeigh are surely Christian ones.

Just as bin Laden does not represent the views of all of Islam, or even most of Islam, the same goes for Breivik and Christianity, Muslims point out.

“This incident is a stark reminder of that there are nuts in all religions. Police in Norway have called the alleged mastermind a ‘Christian fundamentalist.’ But does this guy really represent Christianity? Does he really speak for Christians? Does he really follow Christian traditions? And I believe for all sane people, the answer is a resounding NO,” said Amad Shaikh and Hena Zuberi, of Muslim Matters. “As Muslims, we know it. We don’t need to be reminded of it. We have enough common sense to make a distinction between nuts and mainstream practitioners.”

I think Breivik may have a dramatic impact on how we think about and talk about mass murder attacks and religious extremism. McVeigh, who had been the biggest and one of the only recent Christian terrorists, is name that comes up a lot in the comments section of this blog. People use his example to fight closed-mindedness, showing that not all terrorists are Muslims, but also to criticize religion, saying all faiths are bad because they have the potential motivate people to do crazy things.